masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:ShadowRanger
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:Geth Armory page. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Tullis (Talk) 20:32, January 26, 2010 =Weaponry Comparison Changes= Hi. I'm the originator of the page and came up with the DPS calculation. I appreciate the new information you added. Can you tell me where the info comes from? For example, it looks like you believe the Collector Assault Rifle and the Eviscerator shotgun get 25% bonus damage vs. armor, barriers, and shields. How/where did you come by that info? Also, do you know if the assault rifle upgrades also affect the CAR? Servius 22:20, February 17, 2010 (UTC) :Read the edit summary for the change. :-) It's from a forum post by the Mass Effect 2 gameplay designer, Christina Norman: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/128/index/1143264. ShadowRanger 22:23, February 17, 2010 (UTC) ::I don't know, but strongly suspect, that the assault rifle upgrades apply to the Collector Rifle. If they didn't, it would be pretty damn worthless; the primary advantages over your starting weapon are accuracy and higher damage per bullet; if it didn't benefit from the upgrades it would become superfluous by the time you are 20% of the way through the game. ShadowRanger 22:26, February 17, 2010 (UTC) ::: Ah. It looks like she updated her post about 6 hrs ago. The CAR and the Eviscerator are both on there now, great! Servius 22:39, February 17, 2010 (UTC) Talk Page edits Please do not edit or remove comments made by other users on talk pages. This is considered vandalism, and can result in a ban. Thanks, SpartHawg948 21:57, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :On the Talk:Reaper page, when you added an "Unsorted Theory Threads" header, and in the process removed comments left by two other editors, one of them an admin. SpartHawg948 22:50, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Oh, I forgot about that. I think the removal was justified though. Someone was noting that there was active vandalism, and someone else noted it had been handled. Given that this active vandalism and the response to it occurred in November 2007, I figured it no longer mattered. I would think there is a big difference between editing other's talk page posts (that is, putting words in their mouth) and removing comments that no longer serve a purpose, right? ShadowRanger 22:55, February 25, 2010 (UTC) BTW, on a tangential note, I think shouting at me in the edit comments was a little over the top. Even if you disagree with my argument for removing it, there was no prior history of bad behavior and no evidence of bad faith (like I said, I was not putting words in others mouths, or deleting portions of a comment to convey a different meaning). I'm not asking for an apology, but it does seem overly harsh. ShadowRanger 23:03, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :I wasn't shouting at you (nor was I shouting at all, merely typing in caps), it was a general thing. I do the same thing any time anybody removes any other editors comments, as it's the block-able offense I personally find the most severe (I take it even more seriously than I do vandalism). It's a general attention grabber so people see it and read it. So no, I don't think it was overly harsh at all. :Back to the matter at hand though, it's not your call whether removing comments made by other users is justified or not. It's not even really my call. We don't remove things just because they are old comments on subject matter that died out months or years ago. We'd lose at least 50% of talk page content if that were the case. And unless it's in direct violation of the site language policy, we don't just delete anything from talk pages. If a talk page gets to long, the content can be archived, but not deleted. The only justification for removing comments is if those comments violate the language policy, which theses did not. So please, no more removing comments, no matter how old they may be. SpartHawg948 23:15, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Just to be clear, it wasn't the age that prompted removal. I recognize that old comments should be kept or archived in general. The issue was relevance. Topics that are intrinsically time sensitive don't need to stick around after the useful window has passed. Again, these comments were to notify of vandalism in progress at the time; keeping them around now serves only one purpose: To tell people that two years and four months ago, there was vandalism occurring on that page. Keeping it around serves no purpose at all; there is no circumstance in which that information would be useful to anyone. I'm going to re-add section headers to that talk page (because I hate scrolling through three pages of text just to reach the ToC). I may make a minor joke about this in the new header, just a heads up. ShadowRanger 23:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :Again though, it isn't up to you to determine what is or isn't useful and what comments should or shouldn't be retained. As I stated above, if we removed comments simply because they were old or time-sensitive, we'd lose about 50% of the talk page comments. If you recognize that comments on talk pages should be archived and not deleted, then why delete these comments? SpartHawg948 23:40, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Because there is a qualitative difference between comments which serve to discuss the contents of the page and comments which are really just a one-time notification, the rough equivalent of tagging the article itself with a "needs improvement" sort of tag. Even one-time notifications should stick around for a while (so the original poster knows someone saw them and responded to them), but there's a limit. I'm sorry I can't explain this better; I would think the distinction, while hard to define exactly, is like pornography "I know it when I see it." ShadowRanger 23:44, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :That's fine. You do have to bear in mind though that anything like pornography (anything you "know when you see it") is subjective in the extreme. What is pornography to one, isn't to another. Who makes the deciding call then? That's why we have the standard we do. And I understand humor, but was it necessary to label it "Years old vandalism notification that may not be removed on pain of torture!"? My asking you to please respect site policy is hardly a threat of torture. SpartHawg948 23:46, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::A little hyperbole now and again does no harm. Feel free to change the title of the section if you feel like it, I won't sic the other admins on you for editing my talk page comments. ;-) Call it a minor act of civil disobedience against a well-meaning martinet. ShadowRanger 23:56, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :::A martinet. Thanks. For the record, it wouldn't be editing your comments, as headers aren't really considered comments. I just don't appreciate my attempts to enforce site policy equally and without bias as demanding that obsolete content be kept "under pain of torture". I'm just trying to administer this site fairly and evenhandedly. SpartHawg948 00:00, February 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::Sigh. It's a joke. I really don't mean anything by it, and like I said, you are welcome to remove it. Alternatively, I'd be happy to retitle it "...which may not be removed on pain of ALL CAPS undo comments and a form letter warning on your user talk." Would be more accurate, strictly speaking, but I much prefer the hyperbolic rendering, just for style reasons. ShadowRanger 00:04, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :::I understand you intended it in jest, but the phrase "civil disobedience" implies that your cause was just and right, and what you are disobeying (ie my upholding of site policy) is something that is unjust that should be disobeyed. And the phrase "well-meaning martinet" implies that I am some well-meaning but ultimately misguided disciplinarian hell-bent on the enforcement of some outrageous draconian laws. This is not the case. If I was really some overbearing "martinet", there wouldn't have been any warning letter, there would have been a two-week ban for vandalism. Again, I'm just trying to administer the wiki as fairly and evenhandedly as possible. SpartHawg948 00:17, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :The thing is, it's standard Wiki practice, on any wiki. Talk pages are never cleaned by deleting old content, it's simply archived. I know some really old wikis (wookiepedia comes to mind) actually enjoy keeping every little facet of type that's come across their talk pages, and some will have well over a dozen archives of talk page text. It's just the way things are, even little one-time things such as a notice about vandalism. Take a look at some of the archives in Luke Skywalker's talk page. There's one that's simply "I think there's a bad link in so and so paragraph." followed by "It's fixed now." It's damn near four years old, but it's still there, in the archives. Vund223 23:48, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::I don't know. On Wikipedia itself, removing temporary notices like that is relatively common practice in my experience. Anything of substance gets archived, but administrivia that has no long term value is deleted because it no longer serves the purpose of improving the article. ShadowRanger 00:01, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :::Well, I was referring more to wikis done through Wikia (for instance, Wookiepedia, Halopedia, Wowwiki). True, Wikipedia itself is a bit more leniant with deleting stuff like that, but don't forget, Wikipedia covers everything under (and over, inside, or far away from) the sun. Plus they have thousands upon thousands of articles, dozens of admins, and thousands of editors. Archives would just get crazy if they archived everything ever discussed. So for the record, I'm not including Wikipedia itself in the above statement, I consider it a different entity than what we do here. SO let me revise - archiving everything is a standard practice on Wikia wikis. ::::Hmm, interesting, could've sworn I signed that. Editing it must've knocked the sig off. Oh well, live and learn. Vund223 00:56, February 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::(ec)I would argue that these exceedingly old, clearly pointless threads remain not because the archives have room, but because Wikia lacks the editors and admins necessary to check and enforce the rules as well as Wikipedia does (and even Wikipedia isn't perfect on this). As a result, it's easier to keep junk around than it is to evaluate whether the material still serves a purpose. The system encourages overly literal interpretation and enforcement of the rules, because that takes less work than fully checking the edit to make sure it really is a justifiable deletion (particularly because this damn Wikia software seems to introduce spacing differences for no reason, totally screwing up the diffs). This isn't a knock on SpartHawg or any other admin; I do see the reasons for it and they're not unreasonable. I continue to disagree, but I'm not going to fight a war over a few ancient lines of talk page comments. ShadowRanger 01:03, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :::::From a point of view, you could be right. For instance, this Wiki of over 1,600 articles has only 3 admins. Other Wikis on Wikia are similar. Don't get me wrong, they do a great job here - I'm always amazed at how many places SpartHawg can seem to be at once. But that's just the way our little corner of the universe works here. That's how it's been, and that's probably how it'll continue to be. I hope I'm not starting a war here, I actually try to maintain neutral ground in these discussions (unless one side is definately wrong, see some of my contributions for that), because I actually appreciate having good discussions like this - of course, it is discussions like this that tend to make our talk pages a little lengthy (just check out here for an example). ::::::(Aside)Man, you are not on the ball on signatures today. ::::::(Actual response) I figured as much. Don't worry about provoking warfare. I've already extended an offer of peace to Spart on his talk; what little war there was was already winding when you arrived. I tend to enjoy a vigorous argument for the sake of the argument, as long as both sides don't get too worked up about it. Calling Spart a martinet is something I'd have reconsidered if I'd known he was a military officer; it stings a bit more for that profession due to its origins. And as for playing mediator, don't worry about it. I've played the neutral mediator on Wikipedia too often to mind when someone tries to do it in one of my arguments; I'm occasionally snarky, but I try not to be hypocrite. ShadowRanger 01:26, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Son of a...now I know I signed that last one. Wikia is not on my side tonight. Oh well, glad to see this one wrapped up. Good times. Vund223 02:22, February 26, 2010 (UTC) First Contact War Edit I see your point. And I appoligize if I offended you in the process. See my talk page for more. But again I appoligize if I offended you. I'm not here to make enemies. Lancer1289 18:59, March 18, 2010 (UTC) :I responded on your talk page. No offense was taken, nor was any intended. ShadowRanger 19:05, March 18, 2010 (UTC)